The Psychological Record

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 243–252 | Cite as

Perspective-Taking Measured by Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)

  • Adrián Barbero-Rubio
  • Juan C. López-López
  • Carmen Luciano
  • Nikolett Eisenbeck
Original Article

Abstract

The current study aimed to design a preliminary implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) to measure the increased complexity and the flexibility in perspective taking (PT). Undergraduate students (N = 35) from a Spanish university completed a PT scale and a PT task (deictic relational task; DRT) that involved trials with different complexity (reversed and double reversed). Then, participants were asked to complete an IRAP to assess the level of complexity and flexibility involved in perspective-taking framing. Results showed that the IRAP captured the differences, on the one hand, in relational complexity when the participants were asked to respond saying Yes or No to their own perspective and, on the other hand, in relational flexibility when they were asked to change their own perspective. In addition, the IRAP effect correlated with high deictic ability as measured by the DRT (mainly in double-reversed trials). These findings suggest that the IRAP as designed in the present study seems to be a good indicator of complexity and flexibility in PT.

Keywords

Relational frame theory (RFT) IRAP Deictic framing Perspective taking Quasi-experiment design 

References

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hussey, I., & Luciano, C. (2016). Relational frame theory: Finding its historical and intellectual roots and reflecting upon its future development: An introduction to part II. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 117–129). New York, NY: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010). A sketch of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the relational elaboration and coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2011). The implicit relational assessment procedure: Exploring the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 57–66.Google Scholar
  4. Bast, D. F., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). A first test of the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of forgiveness of self and others. The Psychological Record, 64, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Expósito, P. M., López, M. H., & Valverde, M. R. (2015). Assessment of implicit anti-fat and pro-slim attitudes in young women using the implicit relational assessment procedure. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 15, 17–32.Google Scholar
  7. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hadwin, J. A., Howlin, P., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014). Teaching children with autism to mind-read: The workbook. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001a). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001b). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–49). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144.Google Scholar
  13. McHugh, L., Stewart, I., & Hooper, N. (2012). A contemporary functional analytic account of perspective taking. In L. McHugh & I. Stewart (Eds.), The self and perspective taking: Contributions and applications from modern behavioral science (pp. 55–72). Oakland, CA: Context Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mckenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2007). Testing the fake-ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): The first study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 253–268.Google Scholar
  15. Mestre, V., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P. (2004). La medida de la empatía: análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index [The measurement of empathy: Analysis of the interpersonal reactivity index]. Psicothema, 16, 255–260.Google Scholar
  16. O’Toole, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Three chronometric indices of relational responding as predictors of performance on a brief intelligence test: The importance of relational flexibility. The Psychological Record, 59, 119–132.Google Scholar
  17. Power, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of implicit relative preferences: A first study. The Psychological Record, 59, 621–640.Google Scholar
  18. Scanlon, G., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). Using the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) to assess implicit gender bias and self-esteem in typically-developing children and children with ADHD and with dyslexia. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Törneke, N., Luciano, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Bond, F. (2016). RFT for clinical practice: Three core strategies in understanding and treating human suffering. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Vahey, N. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). A first test of the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self-esteem: Irish prisoner groups and university students. The Psychological Record, 59, 371–388.Google Scholar
  21. Vilardaga, R., Estévez, A., Levin, M., & Hayes, S. (2012). Deictic relational responding, empathy, and experiential avoidance as predictors of social anhedonia: Further contributions from relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 62, 409–432.Google Scholar
  22. Villatte, M., Monestès, M., McHugh, L., Freixa i Baqué, E., & Loas, G. (2008). Assessing deictic relational responding in social anhedonia: A functional approach to the development of theory of mind impairments. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 360–373.Google Scholar
  23. Villatte, M., Monestès, J. L., McHugh, L., Freixa i Baqué, E., & Loas, G. (2010). Assessing perspective taking in schizophrenia using relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 60, 413–436.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, K. G., & Luciano, C. (2002). Terapia de aceptación y compromiso: un tratamiento conductual orientado a los valores [Acceptance and commitment therapy: A values-oriented behavioral treatment]. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrián Barbero-Rubio
    • 1
  • Juan C. López-López
    • 1
  • Carmen Luciano
    • 1
  • Nikolett Eisenbeck
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain

Personalised recommendations